[S-99]

No, Linux is not good enough for everyone. I'm sorry, but most people don't have the time to set Linux up, let alone learn how to use it - Linux is more for code jockeys and computer enthusiasts than the average user. I know the Linux-heads will spout their praises for their favorite distro, but it's just that that's the problem - there are so many different distros that each require different paths to properly set up and run, and most of the appeal behind Linux is having full control over the OS - something most users  don't even want. That's why Macs are so popular - you turn them on, and they go. If they break, send the whole thing to Apple and it gets fixed - total integration of hardware and software.

Linux will never go mainstream unless it becomes easier to use for the average person, who doesn't know how to use a computer, doesn't know how to code, and doesn't want to learn. I'm sorry but damn I'm tired of Linux users spouting how awesome Linux is and wondering why no one else uses it, when they clearly don't understand the dynamics of non-techie people using a computer.

Yes linux is just good enough for everyone. I'm sorry that you're afraid to use it. People who think they're good at computers who only use windows or macosx aren't as good as they think they are. A different platform is a different platform. Do you think windows users going to macosx, or macosx users going to windows are going to have fun? Everyone has to learn how to use a new os whenever they make a switch so what's your *****ing? Everything is different and has it's similarities with differen't os's. Linux has made great strides in user friendliness in the past 4 years. Before that i didn't even touch linux because it was too foreign. Now using linux is very comparable to using winxp and macosx. Setting up linux is not evil. The distro of linux that focuses extremely on user friendliness and ease is ubuntu and ubuntu based linux mint. Ubuntu and linux mint are not made for computer enthusiasts, it's the reason i don't use ubuntu anymore because i know a lot about the underlying linux system and i know how to mess around with it to get what i want.  Linux is just good enough for everyone. You especially might not mind checking out linux. Go check out the linux mint live cd. Test drive the os straight from your cd drive with no installation required to see what your up against. And if you like it, install, or keep the livecd around for computer maintenance (very handy).

The other reason why linux is just good enough for everyone is the applications and games it offers. There are tons of high quality apps that came from linux development, and most of these high quality popular linux apps are cross platform (more so on macosx than windows). The other thing about linux apps is that they are free.

The other reason why linux is just good enough for everyone, is that it's a tried and true tested platform for stability, and a good enough platform for other people to use as well. Linux is a unix like os, and even macosx's core is a unix like os. Macosx can even run linux programs. Since you're an apple user, you're a unix/linux user whether you like it or not. Quit your complaining because your afraid of change and that you don't know how to use different computers. You're just like any other stupid windows user who's afraid of change. Many people use windows for the same exact reason that you use macosx. You turn them on and they go, if your dell, gateway, hp, breaks, send it back to the manufacturer to get it fixed, and even these pc manufacturers have total hardware and software integration also.

Same thing on both computers that come from manufacturers that have windows or osx. The only people who are really left out in the cold with os's is those who build their own rigs. You're too afraid to do that too also (there are success stories of installing osx on pc hardware successfully...especially since apple switched to intel processors, macs are just another pc on the market highly expensive ones). So there you go, try out linux mint before you ***** (but all you're going to say is how different it is from osx...well of course it's going to be, but it's also not going to be as bad as you say). Then again everyone knows that you're probably not going to because you're not one of those people who likes to find things out for themselves. Anyway, you have fun on your unix like os just like i'm having fun on my unix like os, and we can both run linux apps in a very similar fashion that linux apps get installed and run in linux.

There's one thing i always know about apple users. They don't know when to shut the **** up.

[achtung]

The Linux community seems to be catching on to the whole "some people just want it to work" idea; they just seem to be catching on rather slowly.

Oh, and S-99, how do you manage to drag your posts out so much?  Almost every time I see a post by you it's just a wall of text.

[S-99]

It's not that linux is catching slowly. It's that linux development started in the early 90's as opposed to windows and macos which has been around since the 80's as usable os's. Linux was a couple of generations behind, but it's catching up rather fast.

No, not all my posts drag on like this. You should read more of my posts.

Anyway a linux fanboy started said the keyword phrase "linux is good enough for everyone", and then a mac fanboy came in.

Back to ooxml. Already other office suite programs are trying to integrate ooxml, abiword and openoffice in particular. The OOo has no word on it really yet, but abiword does. It's still perfecting it. Then again abiword with their new release is still working out the kinks it has before it gets to widespread use and release.

[Ransom]

Man, those Mac users, they can't even right click, and they don't have an Alt button, they have some crazy swirly button instead.

Better?

Phew. Thanks.

[jdjtcagle]

While I'm not sure what this topic has to do with the Almighty Apple Retarded Fruit Company....

Stupid user base aside, I will never own a Mac. It's not so much that I'm a PC loyalist. I'm not. It's that I'm not stylish enough to own one. Most iPod commercials feature guys with long hair, chicks roller skating, and guys wearing fedoras. I have dandruff, and I buy most of my jeans from a grocery store. I feel like in order to have a Mac, I need to be:

• An artist.
• In a band.
• Unemployed (see above).

The Best Page in the Universe

So you see right through the marketing strategy, doesn't mean a thing...  Thing with marketing is - it has to exist - but boils down to would you buy your own crap.

I like art - although I don't see what that has to do with a mac
not in a band
and employed - funnily enough graphics design (using macs)  you would not believe the time I save using this machine over a "buffed up" windows any day.   Being able to open my computer, programs, and work within a minute.  Work and switch between programs with a click of a button without the worry of ram usage and usless processes slowing me down.  Something else to mention is the search features and filing systems on macs very useful, and quite superior especially if you need to know where EVERYthing is - even if it was done a year ago.

Get over the marketing mess...  everyone has it (period)
Try it... you'll be amazed - it's a quality machine.

[BloodEagle]

I have tried it, my XP machine works better.

[colecampbell666]

Actually, new Macs can right click.

I agree with UT on the whole Linux issue, every Linux distro is different, and they have problems with proprietary stuff. I can't even get my ATi card to work on Fedora, and my mom's HP doesn't work on Ubuntu, etc. There's always some kink that needs ironing out (while also true with Windows/Mac [although less with Mac] the Linux kinks tend to have a larger impact on use) And Linux does take someone fairly tech-savvy.

[Mars]

Linux's advantage is that it's really, really, hard to damage it beyond repair.

It requires some skill, however, and it's not the most compatible OS in the world.

I use Ubuntu, but I dual boot Windows for games

[Ransom]

Actually, new Macs can right click.

That's the beauty of it, though. The stereotype persists despite having been incorrect for over seven years! I love it.

[MP-Ryan]

Nah - your right they aren't losing just yet.  But if Microsoft keeps ignoring compatibility issues, things could possibly shift for Apple.  Like they have for Firefox

IE 6 still has 40%+ of the marketshare; IE7 clocks in around 20%.  Firefox clocks in around 20-30% (depending on the website recording the stats).  Firefox is again far superior to IE but in terms of the marketshare, negligible.  Opera kicks the crap out of pretty much every other browser in existence, but has less than 5% of the marketshare.

So... bad analogy.

Apple will never take a significant portion of the marketshare because they lock down their hardware and software into an integrated unit.  Would I install MacOS X on PC hardware?  Absolutely.  But I will not pay 20% higher prices for hardware that Apple insists on.  That's Apple's problem.  It's also why their software is so successful - it's written for a very specific hardware platform, and thus drivers for multiple hardware configurations and potential conflicts between devices are not an issue.

If anything, you're likely to see Apple pushed into the basic home user market, Windows pushed to primarily server functions, and a greater expansion of Linux among the general public.

Apple's policies are what make their products so reliable, but they would have to trade off that reliability (and claims about viruses and security vulnerabilities) were they to take a significant portion of the overall market.  They would also have to give up the idea of controlling precisely what hardware their OS will be used on.  Mac hardware is nothing special - essentially it's overpriced medium-end hardware with high QC testing to ensure component compatibility.  It's the operating system that is really an impressive feat.  But again, that OS that runs so wonderfully in a controlled environment with a limited userbase has the potential to have serious problems if removed from that context.

[achtung]

Try it... you'll be amazed - it's a quality machine.

I did, and I didn't like it.  Strangely, this strong feeling of undeserving superiority went coursing through my body when I touched the mouse, and went away as soon as I let go.

[colecampbell666]

Nah - your right they aren't losing just yet.  But if Microsoft keeps ignoring compatibility issues, things could possibly shift for Apple.  Like they have for Firefox

IE 6 still has 40%+ of the marketshare; IE7 clocks in around 20%.  Firefox clocks in around 20-30% (depending on the website recording the stats).  Firefox is again far superior to IE but in terms of the marketshare, negligible.  Opera kicks the crap out of pretty much every other browser in existence, but has less than 5% of the marketshare.

Opera's nice, but the thing that makes Firefox so win is moddability.

[S-99]

The real problem with running osx on an actual pc is that you may lose stability because it differs from the  mac hardware base. But, since macs use pc hardware now. You can easily build your own computer buying and installing the same components that's inside a mac and install osx and have a similar experience to actually owning a real mac. That is the one thing you can do if you desire to run osx on what's essentially not a mac, or just build your own computer with your own components and install osx anyway (seems to work for many this way too, but you're best bet is to buy similar components that meet the  mac hardware base when building your own pc to install osx onto). The fact that osx runs linux programs is awesome too. Osx has less hurdles in its way compared to windows running linux programs (basically if people want to run linux programs on osx they have that ability if they choose to use it which is a very powerful ability).

As far as linux goes. Every distro is different. And the only distro's that make it easier with proprietary stuff is ubuntu and pclinuxos (where the proprietary stuff is already in the repos as precompiled packages that await installation). For linux mint, it really picks up where ubuntu leaves off, ubuntu's great for a plain system that you build upon, but linux mint already has dvd css decryption (which also lets you rip dvd's), java, flash, wmv/wma playback, video codecs, mp3 playback and so on already integrated without the user having to go out and grab them. Linux mint also has a proprietary graphics driver installer for nvidia and ati cards (you guys have probably heard of the envy installer before). Linux mint has a pretty good set of programs too. I like how they also made installing applications easier. They made a software portal on the net that you can explore, download mint files (which is really just executable text files with apt-get commands) which you double click, put in your password, and download and install away. Also linux mint looks great, and has a good gui layout. This is reasons why i recommend linux mint, especially for noobs.

Opera is nice, while it seems to run a little bit slower than firefox, i was surprised how it supports torrenting  and when you open a new tab you set up webpages to just click on and shows a preview of what you'll see before you go there.

[MP-Ryan]

The real problem with running osx on an actual pc is that you may lose stability because it differs from the  mac hardware base. But, since macs use pc hardware now. You can easily build your own computer buying and installing the same components that's inside a mac and install osx and have a similar experience to actually owning a real mac. That is the one thing you can do if you desire to run osx on what's essentially not a mac, or just build your own computer with your own components and install osx anyway (seems to work for many this way too, but you're best bet is to buy similar components that meet the  mac hardware base when building your own pc to install osx onto).

A direct install of OSX doesn't work on a PC platform.  It has been locked down to particular hardware configurations.  However, that bit of code was cracked shortly after Apple announced they were moving to the x86 architecture, so its possible, but not straight out of the box so to speak.

Apple would make a killing if they dropped out of the hardware market and went into peripheral devices and software.  They could distribute MacOS to its full potential, fix security vulnerabilities and compatibility issues that would undoubtably crop up, and focus on devices like iPods, phones, and PDA devices that rival anything currently on the market.  Frankly, hardware is a waste of their time and it baffles me that they continue to dabble in the hardware line.  I suspect they may be aware of the problems of a widespread distribution of the Mac OS without its A-list hardware and perhaps that is holding them back.

MacOS may also been a Unix-like OS but the MacOS X variants are actually built upon Unix layers beneath it.  In essence, the OS is acting as an expanded graphical front-end.  It's inherently more secure than Windows, or at least non-NT and pre-XP versions of Windows, but its not infallible.  The primary reason for the lack of security exploits in MacOS is not that they aren't possible (weasling into the backbone of the OS is more than possible), but because it simply isn't worth the time to distribute malware to such a small percentage of the overall market.

Linux, in its present form, is not viable for mainstream users - primarily because it requires background reading.  MacOS suffers because of the lack of mainstream programs available for it (not everyone has discovered open-source yet, and the majority of computer users won't touch the stuff).  That leaves Windows - good old broken, bug-ridden, security sieve Windows.  Unfortunately, it's relatively easy to use, requires no configuration by the end user, and will run every piece of software your average computer illiterate user can buy up off the shelf for the electronic wonders it promises.

Until the majority of computer users are actually educated about computing, Windows is the only viable operating system, as lamentable as that might be,

[S-99]

That's true. You do have to hack x86 osx to install it on a pc. The people who do want it on pc for everyday use. I salute them for their admiribality in charting into unkown waters in a smooth experience or, "how come there's no 3d drivers for my nvidia card in osx!" Idk if that's true or not, just a joke. People putting osx on a pc before apple switched to x86 architecture required emulation. Now it can run natively on pc's on both athlon and intel processors. As far as that goes, people installing osx on their pc may find out what hardware of theirs does and doesn't work in osx. That's the good thing about macs being x86 now, it also means that mac are using pc hardware. Pc hardware that you can probably also by yourself and duplicate the same exact or similar hardware configuration of a mac on a pc for possibly awesome speculative smooth sailing osx on pc.

Linux is making good progress. That's why i won't shutup about linux mint. It's a distro which really tries it's hardest to be ahead of the other distros tp be a linux more viable to use than the others. It really succeeds at this well, but not quite there yet. Stuff's going good though. I'm waiting for kde 4 pretty badly (that's one major big step in viability for linux right there). Also the kernel is making great leaps and bounds as well.

EDIT: and yes it's difficult to install proprietary ati drivers in fedora and centos. It had a different procedure to get those loaded and working compared to pclos, mandriva, slackware, and debian. Not that that's much of a problem, i've hardly been able to touch centos and fedora though.

[Ghostavo]

Linux, in its present form, is not viable for mainstream users - primarily because it requires background reading.  MacOS suffers because of the lack of mainstream programs available for it (not everyone has discovered open-source yet, and the majority of computer users won't touch the stuff).  That leaves Windows - good old broken, bug-ridden, security sieve Windows.  Unfortunately, it's relatively easy to use, requires no configuration by the end user, and will run every piece of software your average computer illiterate user can buy up off the shelf for the electronic wonders it promises.

Until the majority of computer users are actually educated about computing, Windows is the only viable operating system, as lamentable as that might be,

There is another problem, in that certain key commercial programs are only available in windows. I'll give an example I always give my collegues about it.

Chess databases and other related media. There is a huge diference in the ammount and quality of it available between windows and any other OS. In particular chessbase products. I'm sure there are other niche markets like it which are only available to windows.

[S-99]

Windows only programs is a big problem yes. That's why there's plenty of linux equivalent programs. But, i know what you're getting at. There isn't always a linux equivalent of a windows program. That's when you must use wine and have tons of windows programs working awesome in linux. Before you use wine definitely take a stop by the wine application database and see if your program will even run in wine before you start making plans (if it happens to be a program that isn't in the database, try to run it with wine anyway and it just might run anyway). Most programs run just as good as they do in windows, other programs run with some quirks, some programs don't run at all in wine yet. Sometimes wine is a shot in the dark for a program you plan to run using it, but most of the time it's not. Wine is great for running windows games though. I'm having no problems with orange box, but when i was going to buy fear, that's a different story. Fear won't run in wine yet, mostly due to the fact that wine doesn't really have .NET framework support yet. You can get .NET framework 2.0 working on there with a lot of strain. Most people found out that .NET just imports unicows.dll and some other dll file and not much else. So i of course harvested those dll files, i definitely don't have .NET framework working, but i do have it's two important dlls which will help in the future with other programs i intend to run that may make use of those dlls.

I'm really having no problems with my games though. Fs2-scp the linux binary (i know that's not windows) can finally get configured with ease using the windows fs2-scp launcher (and the launcher is a windows program, you just can't use the launcher to increase or decrease the resolution of fs2 linux though, that happens in a different location for the linux version of fs2-scp...essentially yes i do have a launcher for fs2-scp in linux, fs2-scp binaries can run in wine too), orange box, quake 4 (quake 4 runs great with wine, but i prefer to use the linux installer to run it natively because i do have an opportunity to run that way), quake 2 (yes it has a linux binary, but this game is so old i didn't see the need to use it), quake 3 (q3 ran as great q2 did without the linux installers, but i lost q3 and have since moved onto openarena which really is a successor). As far as other programs i use in wine, occasionaly winrar, packet tracer, and sometimes dvdshrink.

EDIT:CheesBase Light 2007 seems to run great in wine. Idk about their other stuff, sounds like it'd definitely be worth your time to find out though.

There is a huge diference in the ammount and quality of it available between windows and any other OS.

That comment seems sort of random. What do you mean?

[Ghostavo]

EDIT:CheesBase Light 2007 seems to run great in wine. Idk about their other stuff, sounds like it'd definitely be worth your time to find out though.

ChessBase Light is a crippled free version of the "main" ChessBase such as ChessBase 9 which doesn't look like it works very well. I've tried Wine and not only is it hard to install anything in it, there is no garantee it will work. Hell, every software I've tried to install in it has failed spectacularly.

There is a huge diference in the ammount and quality of it available between windows and any other OS.

That comment seems sort of random. What do you mean?

Search for software of the likes of ChessBase or their other media like ChessBase Magazine which has OS support besides windows. You'll be hard-pressed to even find one, and if you by chance or miracle find one, you'll find it's quality when compared to the windows' alternatives lacking.

[S-99]

Wine is just like running windows. If you know how to plop necessary dll's into the system32 directory of the windows directory then you know how to use wine. Wine works fantastic, but you do have a point with the chessbase software, at least it's in the wine appdb which means it may have a wine maintainer for that program. You probably know about the /home/username/.wine/drive_c/windows/system32 folder? That's where you dump dll files when you need them because wine tries to provide all the necessary files to run everything, but when it can't you can import windows dlls which really help out. You probably know about that hidden folder, it's nothing more than a standard windows installation directory like you'd find on a normal windows machine. How difficult is that to mess around with if you've messed around with it before?

Hard to install programs in wine? The wine application database does give you a guarantee if something will work or not, it's what it's there for. If no guarantee that something will run that can be found in the wine application database also. After that what's so hard about googling said program name followed by wine in a search to know more? Another thing is that the wine application database contains instructions on how to install and run certain programs too, very handy. Wine's just like an installation of windows, except it doesn't have all the files. In which you'll have to find and import those necessary files to that windows installation when necessary to get something to work. Wine's like this because dll's are not free unless you own a copy of windows, wine has so far done a great job making their own dll's though. For the most part this is what makes installing programs in wine difficult usually it means your missing a core dll that you should get into wine. After that everything really installs the same in wine as it does in windows. But yes, wine does offer pretty good guarantees that windows programs will run. They have a lot of success in running windows programs great and do a pretty good job in telling you the few that wont.

I guess if you don't know how to drag and drop dll's into a windows/system32 folder then i guess you don't know how to do that in windows since you can't do it in wine.

[Ghostavo]

Wine is just like running windows. If you know how to plop necessary dll's into the system32 directory of the windows directory then you know how to use wine. Wine works fantastic, but you do have a point with the chessbase software, at least it's in the wine appdb which means it may have a wine maintainer for that program. You probably know about the /home/username/.wine/drive_c/windows/system32 folder? That's where you dump dll files when you need them because wine tries to provide all the necessary files to run everything, but when it can't you can import windows dlls which really help out. You probably know about that hidden folder, it's nothing more than a standard windows installation directory like you'd find on a normal windows machine. How difficult is that to mess around with if you've messed around with it before?

Hard to install programs in wine? The wine application database does give you a guarantee if something will work or not, it's what it's there for. If no guarantee that something will run that can be found in the wine application database also. After that what's so hard about googling said program name followed by wine in a search to know more? Another thing is that the wine application database contains instructions on how to install and run certain programs too, very handy. Wine's just like an installation of windows, except it doesn't have all the files. In which you'll have to find and import those necessary files to that windows installation when necessary to get something to work. Wine's like this because dll's are not free unless you own a copy of windows, wine has so far done a great job making their own dll's though. For the most part this is what makes installing programs in wine difficult usually it means your missing a core dll that you should get into wine. After that everything really installs the same in wine as it does in windows. But yes, wine does offer pretty good guarantees that windows programs will run. They have a lot of success in running windows programs great and do a pretty good job in telling you the few that wont.

I guess if you don't know how to drag and drop dll's into a windows/system32 folder then i guess you don't know how to do that in windows since you can't do it in wine.

So if a program refuses to work with wine, even appears to have problems according to their website, somehow it relates to my inability to work with dlls? Your powers of logic astound me.